If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

ESPN: Results are in: Expanded playoff wouldn't mean more competition

As one one-sided semifinal bled into another Saturday, as 12 months of anticipation, fueled by three months of regular season, fell apart like a sand castle at high tide, all I could think was this:

Thank goodness. Maybe this will quiet the talk of playoff expansion.

The playoff semifinals fit in nicely with the rest of this December. If you judge the December bowls the way we judge most football seasons these days, you would fire the coach. The games stank. Average winning margin: 20 points. Of 27 bowls played going into Monday, only 10 had a one-score margin at any time during the fourth quarter. Things got better over the past two days, when nine of 11 games were decided by one score (eight points or fewer).

As for the semifinals themselves, No. 3 Notre Dame, beset by injuries -- which can happen when a team plays an opponent with bigger/stronger/faster players -- fell apart in the final minute of the first half against No. 2 Clemson.

No. 4 Oklahoma came out against No. 1 Alabama and played the worst first quarter in a big game since, well, Oklahoma played the BCS final 14 years ago. Those Sooners took a 7-0 lead against USC and trailed 38-10 at the half. The Trojans won 55-19.

So it's crushing. We discovered that Alabama and Clemson, the consensus No. 1 and No. 2 to start the season, are every bit as good as predicted.

Part of the expansion talk is for the fans as well. It would be fun to watch meaningful football throughout December instead of a bowl that has no real meaning besides momentum into the off-season. Really, if we lost the Quick Lane Bowl it wouldn't change a single thing and our recruiting class was already signed and the players already got the extra practice time. It is nice having the momentum of a nice win go through the off-season, but even that is short lived. I doubt PJ will make mention after the first game next year that after playing so well in the Quick Lane Bowl our players were so motivated in the off-season, etc.

Part of the expansion talk is for the fans as well. It would be fun to watch meaningful football throughout December instead of a bowl that has no real meaning besides momentum into the off-season. Really, if we lost the Quick Lane Bowl it wouldn't change a single thing and our recruiting class was already signed and the players already got the extra practice time. It is nice having the momentum of a nice win go through the off-season, but even that is short lived. I doubt PJ will make mention after the first game next year that after playing so well in the Quick Lane Bowl our players were so motivated in the off-season, etc.

I nearly granulated my teeth reading that. Oklahoma, after a bad start was actually pretty good against Alabama - so this article focuses on how Oklahoma got blown out 14 years ago. They talk of "getting it right" this year with no mention of the first season of the four team playoff when the 3rd and 4th ranked teams advanced to the championship game. Nobody ever said the top two seeds would be wrong every year. In the part copied, it also doesn't mention Georgia was #5 and ended with 3 losses and a 2nd place conf finish while Ohio State was #6 as a one loss conference champion. There are bowl results every year and they are all over the board. Very irritating to see writers cherry pick results.

So frustrating, and so typical of anything ESPN-related when it comes to college football. I will say this eternally: They need to get as much "opinion" out of selecting the field for the playoff as possible. The more opinion and backroom politics are involved, the better the SEC looks. The worst was back during the BCS era when they picked two SEC teams to play in the "championship." It is now already getting that close to the same level of BS when they make half the four team field SEC teams.

Yes, I'd like to see a bigger playoff but if that doesn't happen I'd at least like to see the following minimum requirements:

1. Only conference champions, regardless of record, are eligible for the playoff
2. Notre Dame has to join a conference. If their independent tradition is that important to them, they can continue it and remove themselves from the playoff
3. Get as much opinion and regional bias out of the process as possible. That means let things play out on the field in the form of real conference races and conference championship games.

I get it football isn't basketball but some worthy teams fail to make the basketball tournament every year because they failed to get their conference's automatic bid. Some football conferences sandbag their non-con schedules and/or only play 8 conf games. All of this bs doesn't matter if only conf champions are eligible for playoffs.

In the end, I can admit that the SEC has been the best football conference and Alabama is currently on a historic run as a dynasty - but that doesn't mean the gap is so large they should get an auto bid or TWO to the four team playoff every year to eternity and that is what this will quickly devolve into, just like the 2 team BCS playoff did. Head to head conference results and bowls show again and again that the 5 major conferences are acually pretty close to each other in overall power even if they rise and fall slightly compared to one another over time.

Notre Dame was only #3 because they were unbeaten, there is no way they would be ranked ahead of Georgia head to head. The odds makers in Vegas would not have had ND as the favorite in a straight matchup. and, as the writer admits, several players saving themselves for the draft would have suited up to play in the playoff.

Let's look at the mythical playoff of 8:

#1 Alabama vs. #8 UCF: I'd imagine Alabama would be 3 td favorites here. Just more $$$ for the NCAA

#4 Oklahoma vs. #5 Georgia: I think this would be a pick-em game even at Oklahoma. I'd go with Georgia here and more $$$.

#2 Clemson vs. #7 Michigan: Clemson at home by 7. Clemson most likely still wins due to Michigan's offense. More $$$.

Re-rankings:

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Georgia
4. Ohio State

I think Vegas would agree with these outcomes. Then we have:

#1 Alabama vs. #4 Ohio State at neutral site: Alabama most likely favored by 10-12. Similar outcome to Oklahoma game but hey, more $$$$.

#2 Clemson vs. #3 Georgia at neutral site: Let's go with Clemson by 4. Clemson wins in single possession game by 3. More $$$

And there you are, with the same result because this is an academic exercise. Would Tua be less effective with 1 less week to heal and would he be available? Who gets hurt? Who goes crazy and plays out of their minds?

Who knows and who cares? We get more games and College Football make tons more $$$$.

There will be an 8 game tournament, it's just a matter of time. (and $$$$)

Part of the expansion talk is for the fans as well. It would be fun to watch meaningful football throughout December instead of a bowl that has no real meaning besides momentum into the off-season. Really, if we lost the Quick Lane Bowl it wouldn't change a single thing and our recruiting class was already signed and the players already got the extra practice time. It is nice having the momentum of a nice win go through the off-season, but even that is short lived. I doubt PJ will make mention after the first game next year that after playing so well in the Quick Lane Bowl our players were so motivated in the off-season, etc.

I think a bowl game has a lot of meaning and I look forward to that as a goal every year.

I heard a post game interview from Mike Leach a while back where he made a great point. In every other level of NCAA Football they have a playoff. NCAA Division III, Division II and FCS all have playoffs of 24-32 teams. Why shouldn't they have the same setup in the FBS? Use 11 Bowls for the Playoff (12 teams....with top 4 teams getting a bye) and you would still have Bowl games for other teams in which they could qualify. It makes the Bowl games meaningful for all teams and those top teams probably wouldn't have players skipping the Bowl game to get ready for the draft.

Notre Dame was only #3 because they were unbeaten, there is no way they would be ranked ahead of Georgia head to head. The odds makers in Vegas would not have had ND as the favorite in a straight matchup. and, as the writer admits, several players saving themselves for the draft would have suited up to play in the playoff.

Let's look at the mythical playoff of 8:

#1 Alabama vs. #8 UCF: I'd imagine Alabama would be 3 td favorites here. Just more $$$ for the NCAA

#4 Oklahoma vs. #5 Georgia: I think this would be a pick-em game even at Oklahoma. I'd go with Georgia here and more $$$.

#2 Clemson vs. #7 Michigan: Clemson at home by 7. Clemson most likely still wins due to Michigan's offense. More $$$.

Re-rankings:

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Georgia
4. Ohio State

I think Vegas would agree with these outcomes. Then we have:

#1 Alabama vs. #4 Ohio State at neutral site: Alabama most likely favored by 10-12. Similar outcome to Oklahoma game but hey, more $$$$.

#2 Clemson vs. #3 Georgia at neutral site: Let's go with Clemson by 4. Clemson wins in single possession game by 3. More $$$

And there you are, with the same result because this is an academic exercise. Would Tua be less effective with 1 less week to heal and would he be available? Who gets hurt? Who goes crazy and plays out of their minds?

Who knows and who cares? We get more games and College Football make tons more $$$$.

There will be an 8 game tournament, it's just a matter of time. (and $$$$)

Georgia was just trounced by Texas. Stating they’d be big betting favorites over Notre Dame is both unknowable and irrelevant. I couldn’t care less what Vegas and their computer models suggest. There are a lot of factors at play.

Notre Dame was only #3 because they were unbeaten, there is no way they would be ranked ahead of Georgia head to head. The odds makers in Vegas would not have had ND as the favorite in a straight matchup. and, as the writer admits, several players saving themselves for the draft would have suited up to play in the playoff.

Let's look at the mythical playoff of 8:

#1 Alabama vs. #8 UCF: I'd imagine Alabama would be 3 td favorites here. Just more $$$ for the NCAA

#4 Oklahoma vs. #5 Georgia: I think this would be a pick-em game even at Oklahoma. I'd go with Georgia here and more $$$.

#2 Clemson vs. #7 Michigan: Clemson at home by 7. Clemson most likely still wins due to Michigan's offense. More $$$.

Re-rankings:

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Georgia
4. Ohio State

I think Vegas would agree with these outcomes. Then we have:

#1 Alabama vs. #4 Ohio State at neutral site: Alabama most likely favored by 10-12. Similar outcome to Oklahoma game but hey, more $$$$.

#2 Clemson vs. #3 Georgia at neutral site: Let's go with Clemson by 4. Clemson wins in single possession game by 3. More $$$

And there you are, with the same result because this is an academic exercise. Would Tua be less effective with 1 less week to heal and would he be available? Who gets hurt? Who goes crazy and plays out of their minds?

Who knows and who cares? We get more games and College Football make tons more $$$$.

There will be an 8 game tournament, it's just a matter of time. (and $$$$)

After this years Semis, I am more in favor of going back to 2 teams instead of increasing to 8.

If Alabama blows out Clemson, why even have a playoff at all? We could just give them the title after the regular season. The reason for having a playoff of more than 4 teams is because at every level of football...professional, college and high school there is a playoff to crown the champion. Why is the FBS the only one different? It's especially disappointing when you probably only had two of the top four teams in the playoff this year.